Given enough time anything can happen, really!

Originally posted by RJHinds
Natural Selection is the same as adaptation and there is no evidence
that adaption causes evolution of one kind of creature into a more
advanced kind of creature. Adaptation only allows the creature to
change within limits to better suit the conditions of its environment.

There is no convincing proof that radiometric analysis is accurate since
there ...[text shortened]... been proved to have been fakes and any order in the others are
just conjecture and guess work.

“...There is no convincing proof that radiometric analysis is accurate ...”

http://www.debate.org/debates/Radiometric-Dating-is-Accurate/3/
“....the central proof that radiometric dating is accurate. That PROOF is that the dates arrived by radiometry are verified by dendrochronology (tree rings), varve chronology (sediment layers), ice cores, coral banding, speleotherms (cave formations), fission track dating, and electron spin resonance dating. The dates are also verified by independent measurements from other isotope pairs. ….” (my emphasis)


“...And what ordered fossil records? Some of the fossil records
have been proved to have been fakes and any order in the others are
just conjecture and guess work. ...”

what about those that go in none of those categories?

Originally posted by JS357
So it sounds like you are being critical of the "evolutionist" for believing something that (you say) is unfalsifiable, but you are not being critical of yourself for believing something that (you say) is unfalsifiable. That may be because you admit your belief is faith-based.

I think the point you make is significant and bears examination by people to whom ...[text shortened]... abbits in the Precambrian era."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precambrian_rabbit

I'm completely up front about my beliefs and faith; I'm not trying to pass it off
as science, that is why I do not call myself an Intelligent Designest I'm a
Creationist. So when someone else presents "facts" that have more to do with
statements of faith or beliefs than facts I feel compelled to call them on it.

When speaking of events that 'could have' or 'may have' happened X years ago,
because when they enter in data they collected today their model suggests this
or that....once you go past human recorded history a lot of assumptions are being
made. Assuming time gives billions of years and there really was a precambrian
era is an assumption.
Kelly

Originally posted by Agerg
One tends to identify a change in their age with a birthday. When you are 39 you of course, refer to yourself as being a 39 years old but on the day of your birthday you then refer to yourself as 40.

I don't think the underlying point of my last post hit home - you don't need to have seen something start to deduce *when* it started supposing the rules we us ...[text shortened]... e your employees to carry out such poisoning, but it could happen! You never know for sure!!!

I have been maintaining that the distant past is really beyond us to know if we are
really getting it right or not, we can make assumptions, we can believe we know,
but our assumptions and beliefs are not facts they are assumptions and beliefs.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I have been maintaining that the distant past is really beyond us to know if we are
really getting it right or not, we can make assumptions, we can believe we know,
but our assumptions and beliefs are not facts they are assumptions and beliefs.
Kelly

There is a big difference (clearly in an absolute sense, but more importantly: in a relative sense) between 14,000,000,000 and 6,000; does it not seem reasonable to you that if our calculations are that far out then any technology which is derived from the maths and physics to yield those 'wrong calculations' would be malfunctioning quite noticably?

Originally posted by Agerg
There is a big difference (clearly in an absolute sense, but more importantly: in a relative sense) between 14,000,000,000 and 6,000; does it not seem reasonable to you that if our calculations are that far out then any technology which is derived from the maths and physics to yield those 'wrong calculations' would be malfunctioning quite noticably?

You again assume you know how the universe started correct? You assume that
you know why we see the things we do in the universe, correct? With those
assumptions you are either right or wrong, and since neither of us can actually
go back in time to see how it really began, because we each believe what we will
on how it began and why things are the way they are. A created universe to
support life would look different than one that supports like that wasn't created,
how?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm completely up front about my beliefs and faith; I'm not trying to pass it off
as science, that is why I do not call myself an Intelligent Designest I'm a
Creationist. So when someone else presents "facts" that have more to do with
statements of faith or beliefs than facts I feel compelled to call them on it.

When speaking of events that 'could hav ...[text shortened]... ives billions of years and there really was a precambrian
era is an assumption.
Kelly

"Assuming time gives billions of years and there really was a precambrian
era is an assumption. "

Everything could have been created last Thursday. Have you of that?

Originally posted by JS357
"Assuming time gives billions of years and there really was a precambrian
era is an assumption. "

Everything could have been created last Thursday. Have you of that?

I heard of that, that suggests all of our memories and all of our history is false.
I understand that some may say that is still what I'm suggesting but I don't think
so, there is a difference between our saying what we have experienced is not
true or real and suggesting that the universe was created in working order with
all its parts in place to support life.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I suggest you find another way of expressing that sentiment the one you use is offensive.
Kelly

Well maybe you could suggest a word/phrase that means: "you are deliberately avoiding the argument presented to you by accusing your opponent of making claims that he has not so far made in this particular discussion and that are not relevant to the discussion, you have further characterized my knowledge of the age of the earth and universe which is based on mountains of evidence as 'reading the tea leaves', an allegory which suggests I either knew it by supernatural means or made a wild guess which you are perfectly aware is not the case."

Originally posted by KellyJay
....once you go past human recorded history a lot of assumptions are being
made.

Why is human recorded history not subject to assumptions? What makes it more reliable?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why is human recorded history not subject to assumptions? What makes it more reliable?

It is too no doubt, but trust that more than pure conjecture.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well maybe you could suggest a word/phrase that means: "you are deliberately avoiding the argument presented to you by accusing your opponent of making claims that he has not so far made in this particular discussion and that are not relevant to the discussion, you have further characterized my knowledge of the age of the earth and universe which is based ...[text shortened]... t by supernatural means or made a wild guess which you are perfectly aware is not the case."

I'm not avoiding anything.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is too no doubt, but trust that more than pure conjecture.
Kelly

So why is it too not 'pure conjecture'?

Why is it more trust worthy?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm not avoiding anything.
Kelly

Yes you are.
You are trying to avoid admitting that your suggestion that light was created in transit leads to the obvious conclusion that any information carried by that light is an illusion.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So why is it too not 'pure conjecture'?

Why is it more trust worthy?

If I have to know what I'm saying is true, it is better to record that which I can
verify as factual. If I can put my numbers up against reality, than I know my
numbers are far better than if I can only do it against what I think it means. If
I have access to written records of an event, I'll take that over word of mouth.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes you are.
You are trying to avoid admitting that your suggestion that light was created in transit leads to the obvious conclusion that any information carried by that light is an illusion.

I told you everything was put in place to support life, it was created like a watch
that requires all of its parts to be in working order. Gravity's affect wouldn't have
to reach out to put things in orbit, they were created in orbit, planets were put in
place they didn't have form from cosmic dust or whatever you think they came
from, they were just there! So if you think things like that are an illusion, than fine
think that way! Creation was a sudden event, looking at the universe would not
lend itself to that type of information gathering for dates. I cannot think of any
test that would show us one unverse was created and another was not. I'm not at
all being "DISHONEST" here or attempting to hide anything from you! If I were I'd
just kept my mouth shut or lie to you instead of subjecting myself to the laughter
here.
Kelly